Home Recording's Dirty Little Secret

[nzausrec]

I'd like to learn more about the process of tracking digitally, transferring to analog (and getting the sweetness of the knee and saturation) then finalizing it digitally. I think there is a key in there. But, there is software I think that can nearly do it without going to a outboard tape machine.
I don't want to make mistakes of buying incorrect gear/not knowing that there are other products that suit. I mean, I have a mixer and software sitting around that I will never use again. I read once that that I needed a mixer for the pre-amps = wrong. It's kind of a waste.

 

[dodgeaspen]

I wanted to mirror albums like SGT Pepper, The Beatles, Pet Sounds, (Brian Wilson) The Beach Boys, & Electric Ladyland, Jimi Hendrix. But I wanted to mix my own feelings in to it as well. I posted in a thread a few days ago that it's sad that no one has to really lift a finger or be innovative anymore in most recordings. I mean, all the digital people need to do is push a button and get a simulated sound. Back when Brian was doing Pet Sounds he made the sounds what the were. Now I think everyone on the block has a computer and records, they don't have to do nothing but left or right click. I think it take away from the experience.

 

[Sir_Matthew]

Most of the "amateur" songs I hear don't need better gear but better instruments/musicians.

This.

I have crappy recordings of badass musicians that I listen to in spite of the dodgy fidelity. We should never forget that the purpose of recording music is to capture great performances. Those manning the board should become as good at this as possible, certainly, but a bad performance will be just as bad through good gear as it will through Radio Shackery.

We who hog both ends of the mic must remember which bit needs more attention to detail. Most of you probably already know that, but I thought it needed to be said for the record.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I'd like to learn more about the process of tracking digitally, transferring to analog (and getting the sweetness of the knee and saturation) then finalizing it digitally. I think there is a key in there.

This is a common practice or at least belief these days, but personally I feel it's putting the cart before the horse.

Can digital tracking be "sweetened" or "warmed" by passing through a QUALITY analog chain? Sure. But IME better results can be gotten by TRACKING in analog first and then doing the post in digital; then you'll have the "analog sound" at the source and all the way through rather than trying to paste it over the top of a digital source.

I have crappy recordings of badass musicians that I listen to in spite of the dodgy fidelity. We should never forget that the purpose of recording music is to capture great performances. Those manning the board should become as good at this as possible, certainly, but a bad performance will be just as bad through good gear as it will through Radio Shackery.

We who hog both ends of the mic must remember which bit needs more attention to detail. Most of you probably already know that, but I thought it needed to be said for the record.

Amen, brother!

G.

 

[iownrocknroll]

agreed, when I'm working in higher budget studios, we almost always go this route.

There's nothing like 2 inch tape and drums. Tape seems to have a deeper depth of field as well.

 

[Zane1Tsu]

Just voted 2. Was a little kid back in the 80's with a radio shack tape recorder and my uncle's acoustic guitar. It sounded horrible. Looking back, I realized two things: I knew nothing about recording, and I knew nothing about playing the guitar. It's not that I expected to get a commercial sound, but was mystified by the fact that I didn't. I did however take from that an undying fascination with both, that expanded well into my adulthood to this day. As a kid I would even use two cheap tape recorders to try overdubs, with a pair of headphones plugged into the mic input as a mic.

What it comes down to for me are the people involved. It's people that write and perform the music. It's people that pick the location, set the mic's up, press the record button, and mix the tracks. I don't care how awesome your preamp is, but it's not gonna move a mic stand around until it finds the sweet spot. And that SSL console isn't gonna say to any singer, "Hey, you're sounding great, but let's try it this way...". And no DAW, or Studer tape machine is gonna suggest to the guitarist that maybe he should explore inverted chords for the chorus.

Great gear helps. In the end, though, it's PEOPLE making "commercial" recordings, using the gear as tools instead of letting the gear make people into tools.

Oh, and by the way, people also do mastering, which is an important part of "commercial" recording, so when radio smashes your music, it doesn't sound like someone is screwing with the volume controls in your car.

 

[kcearl]

This.

I have crappy recordings of badass musicians that I listen to in spite of the dodgy fidelity. We should never forget that the purpose of recording music is to capture great performances. Those manning the board should become as good at this as possible, certainly, but a bad performance will be just as bad through good gear as it will through Radio Shackery.

We who hog both ends of the mic must remember which bit needs more attention to detail. Most of you probably already know that, but I thought it needed to be said for the record.

good post


one of my favourite genres is northern soul and some of those recordings sound like they are played on an acetate polished with sandpaper with kitchen sink production....just adds to the sound imo

 

[Amos McWoods]

I voted 3. I figured at some point I would be able to get "good enough" quality recordings, not necessarily like what you hear on the radio ( I know those are further compressed/zinged up on broadcast). I'm not aiming to sound like most commercial recordings anyway, so to me it's like apples and oranges.

 

[glynb]

All depends what you're aiming for doesn't it? if your goal in home recording is to make your own band sound exactly like the production on..say.. metallica's latest album...good luck.

if you want to prduce some simple recordings more in the folk/country style...that's certainly achievable to match pro-sounding recordings, or rap/ hiphop etc can be made at home.

The cost of technology isn't the limiting factor anymore is it? it's the knowledge of how to use it.

 

[outerspacezoo]

the producers here from the 70s generation, naturally, are stuck in that era. it's like trying to convince your grandfather of getting a new car or a hdtv (mine does have an hdtv, just an example) .. but he doesn't see the need and still defends how simple things were back then. or that they look the same etc etc.

some producers here do not understand, that with the hi tech plugins, vst and effects you can make studio sounding recordings. times have changed .. no longer does one need to know an instrument to play it:

look at this 12 year old kid ... listen to what he does with fl studio:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2bs7Ox2GBc&feature=channel_page
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ17POFi0UE&feature=channel_page

vst are slowly replacing real instruments for studio recordings. there are still certain instruments that are yet to be replicated perfectly. however, we've already reached a point that with a m-audio interface, a couple of 80 dollar mics, logic pro, izotope ozone, hypersonic 2 and ez drummer.. you can make a top notch quality recording. matching that of a studio recording.

lol, don't even try to compare 60s equipment, with modern technology. it is now not only easier, but the technology is way more advanced.

 

[Seafroggys]

Care to show us an example of fake instruments that sound like real instruments?

And no, that piano done in fruity loops doesn't sound like a real piano. Sounds flat (not flat as in pitch, just flat as in the depth of the notes)

 

[outerspacezoo]

Care to show us an example of fake instruments that sound like real instruments?

And no, that piano done in fruity loops doesn't sound like a real piano. Sounds flat (not flat as in pitch, just flat as in the depth of the notes)

lol, come on man, that was not an example.

here are some:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqGJ8y67SU8&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scdGecFfgus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRUNWM6ZlW8

just a few examples i found by doing a quick search. watch in hq to hear the sounds in high quality. now, you try and do that with real instruments and we'll compare the recordings. not a hired musician... you, with your skills, try and do that. then mix it, master it .. whatever you need to do and post it here.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

the producers here from the 70s generation, naturally, are stuck in that era. it's like trying to convince your grandfather of getting a new car or a hdtv (mine does have an hdtv, just an example) .. but he doesn't see the need and still defends how simple things were back then. or that they look the same etc etc.

some producers here do not understand, that with the hi tech plugins, vst and effects you can make studio sounding recordings. times have changed .. no longer does one need to know an instrument to play it:
...
lol, don't even try to compare 60s equipment, with modern technology. it is now not only easier, but the technology is way more advanced.

This is an even worse case of ageism than that of which you accuse the adults. And it's pure BS.

"Advanced" technology does not always mean better quality. Most (not all) "advanced" technology for the consumer was designed and built not to make things better for the consumer, but to create new markets and generate new revenue.

Look at golf clubs for example. It's amazing how all that those fancy titanium alloys, computer analysis and design, and blahblahblah keep coming out over the years, yet golf scores have remained fairly flat over the past 40 years. The new tools have not make golfers any better, the only thing they have increased is the PE ratios for Titlist, Spaulding, Nike, and the rest.

Don't mistake capacity for capability. Capacity is provided by the gear. Capability comes from the user, not the gear. For example, when playing a guitar, tone is in the fingers, not in the guitar or amp; a concept that most beginners just can't wrap their heads around. You just can't get that from a computer. And you *definitely* aren't going to get that from a computer if you don't know the guitar well enough to understand that basic concept to begin with.

And finally, even if you could get all that from a computer jut by pushing a few buttons, what's the point? Why bother recording it if it's just a computer playing the music? There's absolutely nothing special about that. That's like watching the Super Bowl and replacing all the players with robots; there's no point.

G.

 

[Seafroggys]

lol, come on man, that was not an example.

here are some:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqGJ8y67SU8&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scdGecFfgus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRUNWM6ZlW8

just a few examples i found by doing a quick search. watch in hq to hear the sounds in high quality. now, you try and do that with real instruments and we'll compare the recordings. not a hired musician... you, with your skills, try and do that. then mix it, master it .. whatever you need to do and post it here.

but in otder to do that, then you need to get samples that come from....gasp...talented musicians with good gear, and obviously you need talent to play the keys like that.

I don't see what your point is.

 

[glynb]

There's no question that advances in technology have made things possible that were not possible for a solo musician working at home in the 60s/70s/80s.

It's not all about replacing musicians with machines. it's giving an individual the chance to create music without having to rope in an army of musicians/producers/arrangers willing to do his bidding!

It's possible for example to orchestrate a piece of music at home using keyboards which replicate the sound of an orchestra very well, impossible years back.

So the vision of how a piece of music should go can be realised by the individual creator, without having to persuade lots of other people to get involved and/or pay them a load of cash (beyond the hope of most of us). Techology has liberated and enabled.

But without talent to use it creatively, technology means nothing.

 

[Pete Gossett]

I figured that if you were creative enough and could learn to get the most out of your equipment, you could certainly equal some of the "classics" recorded in the 60's and 70's... since they were recorded on technology that would be considered less than what is available to the home recordist of today... LOL

I've got an album recorded by the Black Keys that lists in the credits "Recorded in Medium-Fidelity at so-n-so studio...etc." And it really does sound like a 70's production. I've never researched into their methods to getting that sound, but I often wonder if it might not have taken more time/effort/gear than what would have been done in the 70's. Then again, they may have just stuck a couple mics in the room and went to town....

 

[Amos McWoods]

I've heard it said that a good guitar player could take a POS guitar, plug it into a POS amp, and still sound better than a beginner with a $5000 rig.

I'd suspect an engineer worth his salt could make a better sounding recording with the equipment the Beatles recorded on than a 12 year old kid with Pro Tools, a couple $99 condensers, etc.

Naturally you don't have the same editing capabilities with the older stuff, but my point is sound quality. It's more about knowing how to get it. And I bet he would be done mixing long before the 12 year old.

Technology enables, sure...but who is enabled by it? Look at MySpace for bands. Now every crappy garage band has the technology to post their crappy music on the internet. But who cares??

However as far as capability to record instruments you wouldn't normally have access to, DAW's obviously win hands down. I just wish I had a better sounding Mellotron vst. Anybody know of one?

 

[Seafroggys]

^^^ that's probably not a great analogy. I'm sure the microphones The Beatles recorded on easily outclass anything anybody here has, and even some pro studios....U47, U48, U67, C12, Royer and RCA ribbons, etc. etc.

 

[Melvin McSnatch]

I never thought I could reproduce a professional studio quality sound, but with some practice - and some pirated software - even cheap equipment (cept for mics) can give you a bright, high signal-to-noise ratio recordings. Software compressor/limiter and most effects still suck, but the pure audio is fine. Even my 16bit, 44.1 recordings sound great on the CD player. Focus on gain staging and slightly boost the high frequencies on the front end, work with panning post-edit if possible.

I still have troubles with vocals though... Drums sound a little unbalanced. But only one of these is an actual equipment problem.

 

[miroslav]

... and some pirated software...

Does pirated software give you a more pro sound than legally bought stuff?